It answers so many questions that are raised about decarbonisation, offers the promise of ships that could operate for ten years without refuelling, and ensures the prospect of a return to faster and more productive marine transport. On the other hand, nuclear propulsion brings with it other challenges related to safety, the disposal of waste and, perhaps as important in this day and age, public acceptance.
There have been tentative noises about the possibility of nuclear power for merchant marine propulsion for some years. Indeed, the demand for oil to be phased out is just the latest trigger, as similar views have been expressed (without much conviction) whenever fuel prices have risen steeply.
But the recent news that Lloyd’s Register, along with nuclear specialist Core Power, has joined with A.P. Moller–Maersk to study the possibilities represents something of a more serious engagement than hitherto. There are suggestions of a “4th generation” reactor becoming a feasible means of running ships, perhaps during the 2030s.
We have had nuclear power at sea, albeit in the restricted hands of the military and very specialised operators, for the past sixty years, and one might surmise that the machinery has been substantially improved during this period.
There are also a number of companies that have been advertising their developments in small reactors for a whole host of land-based uses. So, one might conclude that there is no technical reason whatever why we cannot build and operate nuclear-powered merchant ships today.
The three challenges enumerated by the partners are safety, waste management, and acceptance. While they are closely interconnected and all hugely demanding, it is the last that might prove to be the highest hurdle.
Nuclear submarines and icebreakers in the frozen north tend to be “out of sight and out of mind,” all with good safety records, but there is a major task to be undertaken in changing perceptions about nuclear power. One does not need a long memory to recall the horror of Chernobyl, the tragedy of the Japanese tsunami disaster, and the way that any nuclear accident cements an extra layer of resistance in the mind of the public. Further back, one might recall the hostility that the first experimental Japanese nuclear merchant ship engendered as she entered service.
Perhaps understandably, in that country, the project was doomed from the start, with the wretched ship pursued around the coast and barricaded in port by enraged fishermen. A highly publicised mechanical problem effectively sealed her fate, and the ship was decommissioned shortly afterwards.
It does not take much imagination to forecast anti-nuclear and environmental interests generating fierce opposition to the concept of non-governmental nuclear ships in their ports and waters. One might recall how countries like New Zealand refused to permit nuclear-powered warships, or ships that "might" have nuclear warheads aboard, to call, regardless of any defence pacts. Would civilian-manned nuclear ships ever be acceptable, even in the most restricted circumstances?
How can perceptions be changed? One might look elsewhere for guidance and recall that the emergence of large LNG ships in the 1960s occasioned considerable alarm. There was a well-discussed major report on a possible huge leak of the gas, with terrifying charts showing how the winds might take a plume of escaped gas over a highly populated area, thence igniting to deadly effect.
London pilots would ask masters of ships passing the first LNG terminal at Canvey Island, to ensure that there was no smoking aboard a passing ship. The concern was serious.
And yet, because of a well-publicised culture of utmost safety, and the operation of these ships being in the hands of the most safety-minded crews and companies, LNG carriers soon established themselves as the very epitome of operational excellence. Over the years, there has been little ever to change this view, even though some of the ships have lived lives of extraordinary longevity.
But a redundant gas carrier can be treated conventionally by the recyclers, unlike anything with a radiation source aboard. The ultimate disposal of nuclear waste remains problematical and costly, as the decaying carcasses of nuclear submarines bear witness in those countries that have operated them.
And while military nuclear craft have defence budgets to rely upon, the ultimate question for potential commercial operators would revolve around their viability, even if the three challenges could be resolved.
It would a wonderful notion to operate a ship for a decade or more without refuelling. But would the sums ever add up?